Be careful what you wish for

A fascinating and wide-ranging issue of The Psychologist in May. In one article, reference to the potential role of psychologists in politics via a route through Parliament and the development of internships for psychologists to the House of Commons (Immersed in Westminster, Cameron and Shaw). In another, the explanation from the chair of the Health and Care Professions Council sub-group of the British Psychological Society's Practice Board about the emerging possibility of regulation and 'appropriate' qualification of psychologists.

This response from the chair of the sub-group was a masterly exercise in the acronymic exposition of bureaucratic complexity. (As an aside, the inclusion in the very same issue of an article 'on reading' William James and understanding his position on psychologists not being associated with such organisations, Philip Davis, My William James, was an excellent example of irony within the same magazine).

But the regulation of 'appropriate qualification' through a 'tighter regime' carries with it difficulties in practice. As an example, here in Australia the term 'psychologist' is a protected title and can only be used by those deemed by the Psychology Board of Australia to have the appropriate qualifications and are registered psychologists. Good as far as it goes. But that leaves hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have degrees in psychology and who have contributed years of work in research in psychological science and in the education of psychology students, being barred from referring to themselves as a 'psychologist'.

If they were to do so in a public forum – say in appearing on radio or television, or writing to a newspaper, or even, for example, appearing before a statutory authority to give expert testimony about issues that involves knowledge about human behaviour and the functioning of human social organisations – they put themselves at real risk of being fined and prosecuted. A social psychologist cannot portray themselves as such. That risks a fine. They have to present themselves as a 'social behavioural scientist' or a 'social scientist'. In each case, the recognition of specific psychological training is lost.

To protect the public and allow policymakers and politicians the opportunity to access 'expert testimony' is an important function of any regulatory body and the Society also will wish to have its integrity and reputation protected. But there is a line to be drawn between regulation and prohibition that needs to be recognised and so protect the reputation and recognise the expertise of scholars in the science of psychology.

J Michael Innes MA, PhD, FASSA, FAPS, FBPsS
Adjunct Research Professor, Justice and Society, University of South Australia

Response

When the regulation of psychologists in the UK was discussed, the government of the day held the view that if psychologist was the protected title, academics and students could potentially be criminalised. The Society's argument that academics and students could be exempted was rejected.

So in the 2006 proposal for a Psychological Professions Council (PPC), the paper argued to protect 'psychologist', but that 'Services provided in connection with the acquisition or dissemination of knowledge for teaching and research will be explicitly excluded'. The PPC was supported by various organisations.

Any ongoing discussion around the form regulation takes will continue to consider these issues, and we expect to report in The Psychologist in due course.

Professor (Emeritus) Tony Lavender
BSc. M.Phil. PhD. FBPsS., Chair of HCPC sub-group
Canterbury Christ Church University, Salomons Institute for Applied Psychology

Dr Rachel Scudamore PFHEA GMBPsS
Head of QA & Standards, BPS

Nigel Atter MSc BA (hons)
Policy Advisor